Historic wrongdoing, Slavery, Compensation and Apology

   

Recently the Trevelyan family says it is apologising for its ancestor’s role in slavery in the Caribbean, see The Observer .King Charles also wants to better understand the part the royal family played in past slavery. In this posting I will use the Trevelyan case to examine apology and compensation for past wrongs. I will conclude that many people and organisations apologise, when they don’t need to, because saying sorry is easy, which it shouldn’t be, and fail to compensate when they should because it is expensive.

Let us consider compensation first. I would suggest that if compensation is due that three conditions must be met First someone or something must have benefitted from some wrongful action, it is important to note that they don’t have done anything wrong themselves. For instance receiving stolen goods when the receiver is unaware that they have been stolen. Secondly someone or something has been harmed by this action. Lastly there is someone who has been harmed who can benefit from any compensation. Do the Trevelyan family satisfy the first condition? It seems obvious that past members of the family became richer due to slavery. It also seems likely that present day members of the family have benefitted from this increased wealth, the Trevelyan’s aren’t a poor family. It seems that the Trevelyan family satisfy the first condition. It might be argued that some nations satisfy the first condition, Great Britain for instance. I’m doubtful if such an argument can succeed. It is difficult to show that a nation is more prosperous now due to a colonialist past. For instance the British with a long colonial past aren’t more prosperous than the Danes with none. Let us now consider the second condition. Cleary the Trevelyan family have damaged slaves and satisfy this condition. Do they satisfy the third condition? Clearly they cannot compensate those they harmed directly but have their past actions harmed people living now? Has the development and prosperity of some Caribbean islands been adversely affected by past slavery? This might be difficult to show but if it can then the Trevelyan family is right in offering compensation.

I now want to consider whether the Trevelyan family is right to offering an apology for past slavery. When is an apology required? Intuitively we might think an apology should be offered whenever compensation is owed under the three conditions outlined above. An example will show our intuition are unsound. Let us assume that a young man steals a great work of art from a museum and as a result becomes very rich. Later he marries and has a family who are unaware of his past. Much later when her parents are dead his daughter learns about the true source of her wealth and offers the museum compensation. She is right to do so but she has no reason to apologise. For someone to have reason to apologise it isn’t sufficient that she has benefitted from some wrongful action she must also have played a part in or endorsed the wrongdoing. Apology seems to be connected to guilt about the wrongdoing. The third condition needed for compensation is that there must be someone who can be compensated. Does the above mean that an apology is only needed when there is someone to apologise to? I’m not sure for apologising might benefit the apologiser. In the light of the above I would suggest that individual members of the Trevelyan family have no reason to apologise to Caribbean islanders affected by the past wrongs of slavery. It is important to distinguish between regret and apology. Regret comes from sympathy whilst apology originates in guilt.  The Trevelyan family might of course feel sympathy and express regret for their past actions but apology is inappropriate by present day individual members of the family aren’t guilty of any wrongdoing. Apologising is mistaken or even a form of moral grandstanding.  

Let us accept that individual members of the Trevelyan family haven’t any reason to apologise but in theory they do have a duty to compensate the victims of slavery. T\he amount of compensation cannot be assessed accurately but provided the amount is meaningful the duty will have been satisfied. Let us turn to a slightly different question does the family rather than individual family members have reason to apologise? Governments apologise for past wrongdoing so why shouldn’t families? I will now argue families don’t.

The first condition needed for an individual to have a duty to apologise is that she has done some wrong. Let us accept that this condition should also apply to families. However it is harder for families to satisfy this condition than individuals. Consider the Trevelyan family at the time of slavery. Did all members approve owning slaves or did some disapprove? If some members disapproved then it seems wrong to blame the family even if individual members can be blamed. This suggests that a fourth condition must be satisfied for any family to have a duty to apologise. Families must be united at the time of their wrongdoing for them to have a duty to apologise. This is a hard condition to satisfy but I will now argue that even if families are united at the time of wrongdoing and had a duty to apologise that this doesn’t mean that the family retains this duty several generations later. I would suggest for a family to retain a duty that not only must it be united at the time of wrongdoing but also over time. Of course a family such as the Trevelyans is united by a name but simply having a name doesn’t impose any duties for if it did it would apply to infants. A family might be united by inherited wealth but this seems to raise a duty to compensate rather than a duty to apologise. After several generations individual family members are linked to numerous other families, can someone be united with multiple families? However even if a family can be united in some way thus doesn’t mean it has a duty to apologise for past wrongdoing. For a family to apologise it must be united in its apology for a disunited apology is an individual one. An apology for being a member of the family rather than one on behalf of the family. It follows that a family cannot apologise for the wrongdoings of past members and that any such apology is mistaken or not inauthentic.

I have argued that it is difficult or impossible for families to apologise for historic wrongdoing due to a lack of unity but it might be argued that collective responsibility means governments and other organisations might do so. In what follows government means government or organisation. Collective responsibility means even if a member of a government argues against some policy and it is adopted that she must endorse it or resign. It follows that governments can make united decisions and if these decisions prove to be wrong have a duty to apologise. However governments are only united for a limited time. A government is unlikely to be united with previous governments several generations ago. It follows governments can’t apologise for historical wrongdoing. Lastly if apology is based on guilt and a government is not unites over time a past government night have a duty to apologise whilst the present one has none, it might of course have a duty to express regret but this is based  on sympathy rather than guilt..

What conclusions can be drawn from the above? First compensation is due in many cases when no apology is required. Secondly apologising for historic wrongs is mistaken or inauthentic in most cases because apology is based on guilt rather sympathy. Lastly perhaps some governments might apologise because it is a cheaper option than compensation even if this is due.

Afterthoughts 

Too many people the practice of apologising when no apology is needed is harmless even if unwarranted. I would suggest this isn’t so as apology plays a vital role in forgiveness. Some might argue that I’m mistaken because we can forgive unconditionally, no apology necessary. Forgiveness aims to restore good relations between the victim and the wrongdoer. If a wrongdoer fails to accept his wrongdoing to himself or the victim then these relations cannot be restored. If a wrongdoer accepts his wrongdoing then he must show his acceptance to the victim by apologising.  Forgiveness requires apology. Unwarranted apologies diminish the power of apology and weaken the importance of forgiveness.